 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / February 2006Sedans tested by Consumer Reports March 2006
You will note the Chevy Impala got a check marked recommendation yet there wasn't much nice about the car in the write up. I don't quite figure it. On a more important matter, the fuel economy of all the cars was abysmal. They would have scored much, much worse if the cars were tested at full load, a glaring oversight. The Airbus A380 is being flown around the world loaded with barrels of water. The dead weight is for a reason, to simulate a full passenger load. A light car does not fit the real world. All parameters degrade with load, so it is important to test these cars at full gross weight, so we can observe the worst case conditions. When you take the family on a cross country road trip, you are heavily loaded. Just how much lower would the Impala rate in fuel economy? Maybe 14 or 15 mpg., about the same as the '56 model. What progress have we made in half a century? Other than a better radio, I can't think of anything. > On 2/8/2006 7:40 PM ... Nomen Nescio wrote: > You will note the Chevy Impala got a check marked recommendation yet there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > loaded with barrels of water. The dead weight is for a reason, to simulate > a full passenger load. Rarely does one see a car on the road with more than one person in it. Personal vehicles are not used for commercial transport purposes, thus are rarely driven with anything cluse to full load. > A light car does not fit the real world. All parameters degrade with load, > so it is important to test these cars at full gross weight, so we can > observe the worst case conditions. When you take the family on a cross > country road trip, you are heavily loaded. Why? Very few cars are being driven routinely loaded up. At worse it *may* have a bag of gulf clubs in the trunk. The typical use is one passenger with maybe 20-50 pounds in the trunk. That's it! > Just how much lower would the Impala rate in fuel economy? Maybe 14 or 15 > mpg., about the same as the '56 model. What progress have we made in half > a century? Other than a better radio, I can't think of anything. Uhm, my mother's 1969 Impala averages around 12MPG with only the driver in it. It might get 15MPG on a family trip ("loaded up") if you were lucky. Today's Impala can easily achieve ~30MPG, which is double that of the '69 model. Of course the car is about half the size as it was! ;-) My 1967 GTO averaged 8MPG, 10MPG tops on the highway. You're more off-base than usual on this one. > My 1967 GTO averaged 8MPG, 10MPG tops on the highway. Lead foot My '68 GTO and my '65 Bonnie would get 18-20 mpg on the highway. My '67 Caprice was also in the same range. > On 2/9/2006 7:33 AM ... Repairman wrote: >> My 1967 GTO averaged 8MPG, 10MPG tops on the highway. > > Lead foot > My '68 GTO and my '65 Bonnie would get 18-20 mpg on the highway. My '67 > Caprice was also in the same range. 411 rear, I guess. 3100-RPM @ 60MPH. It hit redline at ~95MPH, which killed my quarter times since I couldn't let it "run out" to the finish. Lead-foot...you betcha! All the way to 164,000 miles before I sold it too! ;-) <SNIP> > Uhm, my mother's 1969 Impala averages around 12MPG with only the driver <SNIP> > of the '69 model. Of course the car is about half the size as it was! > ;-) <SNIP> I'm going to stick my nose in right here. Only because we went through this in the thread "GM go for 1000 pounds car per passenger" a while back, here's some numbers from that thread: 2006 Impala: Curb Weight: ~3500lbs Wheel Base - 110.5" Length - 200" Width - 72.9" Height - 58.7" 1964 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs Wheel Base - 119" Length - 210" Width - 77" Height - 55.5" > <SNIP> > > Uhm, my mother's 1969 Impala averages around 12MPG with only the driver [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Width - 77" > Height - 55.5" Where'd you get the curb weight for the '64? It seems to me unlikely that a shorter, narrower (albeit taller) '06 with modern materials would weigh the same as a '64. I checked Edmunds and the curb weight for the '06 with V8 is more like 3700lbs. Still... > > <SNIP> > > > Uhm, my mother's 1969 Impala averages around 12MPG with only the driver [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I checked Edmunds and the curb weight for the '06 with V8 is more like > 3700lbs. Still... Well, 3500lbs is about right... http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/comparison2.shtml > Where'd you get the curb weight for the '64? It seems to me unlikely that a > shorter, narrower (albeit taller) '06 with modern materials would weigh the > same as a '64. Cars have become heavier for their size, in spite of lighter material usage. Multi valves, 4, 5 and 6 speed autos, large air conditioners, stiffer bodies, huge tires, etc. > > Where'd you get the curb weight for the '64? It seems to me unlikely that a > > shorter, narrower (albeit taller) '06 with modern materials would weigh the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Multi valves, 4, 5 and 6 speed autos, large air conditioners, > stiffer bodies, huge tires, etc. _______________ A lot of that weight also goes into a taller roofline, remember. A few post back a guy specs out a 64 vs. '06 Impala: The 64 was 55.5" tall, the '06, 58" tall. People are taller than they were 40 years ago, so cars have to accommodate. -CC I question the 3500 pound weight of the 64, since my dad's 66 BelAir had a title weight of 3900 pounds, and would get 16 mpg if you could keep your foot out of the carb. Roy >> <SNIP> >> > Uhm, my mother's 1969 Impala averages around 12MPG with only the driver [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I checked Edmunds and the curb weight for the '06 with V8 is more like > 3700lbs. Still... >I question the 3500 pound weight of the 64, since my dad's 66 BelAir had a >title weight of 3900 pounds, and would get 16 mpg if you could keep your >foot out of the carb. Title weight and curb weight are sometimes two different things. Besides, you are questioning the posted curb weight of a '64 Impala based on what the title for a '66 BelAir says? Search the internet on '64 Impala curb weights and then come back. Steve > >I question the 3500 pound weight of the 64, since my dad's 66 BelAir had a > >title weight of 3900 pounds, and would get 16 mpg if you could keep your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Here's a link with the referenced information: http://www.348-409.com/1964factpage.html After looking at the websites, I admit I goofed on the numbers. However, in Texas during the 60's registration fees were based on car weight; and that is where i got the 3900 pound weight for the 66. Guess they figured as a loaded weight. Roy >> >I question the 3500 pound weight of the 64, since my dad's 66 BelAir had >> >a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.348-409.com/1964factpage.html > After looking at the websites, I admit I goofed on the numbers. However, > in Texas during the 60's registration fees were based on car weight; and > that is where i got the 3900 pound weight for the 66. Guess they figured > as a loaded weight. Nova Scotia uses curb weight for registration. I tried to find some old paper work for my car in Ontario, but I believe they use gross vehicle weight. I know the truck was registered as 10,000lbs in Ontario, but only weighed 7,800lbs. Steve I disagree, I went to Fla with 3 passengers 2 over 200 lbs and a load of luggage that barely fit in the car, Impala with the 3800, got 29 mpg at 70-75 started out from the NE in 20 degree weather! > You will note the Chevy Impala got a check marked recommendation yet there > wasn't much nice about the car in the write up. I don't quite figure it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mpg., about the same as the '56 model. What progress have we made in half > a century? Other than a better radio, I can't think of anything. > You will note the Chevy Impala got a check marked recommendation yet there > wasn't much nice about the car in the write up. I don't quite figure it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mpg., about the same as the '56 model. What progress have we made in half > a century? Other than a better radio, I can't think of anything. Heh. My '05 model's stereo might as well be a Bose (all highs and lows) and the CD player has never worked right (need to get my personal vehicle fixed so I can take it in before the warranty runs out) nate |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.